Renew and Restore America

by James Wijck

With Amy Coney Barrett's appointment to the Supreme Court, it is finally time for our country face that the ruling Lawrence v Texas was an unconstitutional mistake of extraordinary proportions. Seventeen years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v Texas that laws prohibiting sodomy between consenting adults were unconstitutional, re-affirming the false “right” to privacy enumerated in Roe v Wade. These decisions undermine the essential conditions necessary for the pursuit of happiness, and are destroying the American way of life. To truly renew America, and make the United States of America great again, we must undo the unconstitutional and immoral mistakes of a liberal, activist Supreme Court.

The “Right” to Privacy & Liberty

Our story starts with Roe v Wade, the first in a series of extraordinary mistakes disguised as social reforms, and favored by progressive extremists who sought to abolish the traditional American understanding of the family.

Roe v Wade established the right to privacy, which was later extended through Griswold v Connecticut to married couples. Therefore, anti-sodomy laws could not apply to married couples, as consensual sexual activity within the bounds of marriage was then protected under the right to privacy. With that law established, married couples could never be prosecuted for sodomy, leaving the courts with the burden of proving that selective enforcement against sodomites was constitutional.

However, it's been well established by now that Roe v Wade is based on notions which completely contradict themselves, and that the right to privacy has no basis in the Constitution. Justice Rehnquist's dissent thoroughly covers the matter. The freedom from searches and seizures is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the court erroneously claims also embodies a right to privacy. There are differing views on the ways of addressing the constitutionality of a right. Some men maintain that there are certain kinds of acts— for example, infamous crimes against nature— which fall entirely outside the Amendment’s scope. Other men maintain that all people have the right to be free from search and seizure, but that history and tradition support the government's power to identify the conditions under which the legislature can take it away, such as when one is suspected of having committed a crime. In the case of Roe v Wade, the right to privacy is neither enumerated in the Constitution, nor is there any right to privacy established through history or tradition.

Privacy is a relatively new concept. Information about citizens was often public in the 1900s, including information collected in the U.S. census. Our culture repeatedly and historically has prioritized convenience and wealth over privacy, as has especially been seen in the modern era, with voluntary web tracking. Invasive tracking of Americans' every move through social media, web cookies, GPS, and CCTV is ubiquitous. Even when offered the opportunity to opt out of tracking for ad targeting, few users take it. This is an extension of historical trends, not an aberration. Therefore, opining on a sacred right to privacy is an absurd excuse that begs further explanation. I will remark that it is clear this “right” was invented by activists as a reason for denying justice to the unborn, especially at a time when brutal nonsense such as eugenics were still active in the minds of scientists as a weapon for the purpose of population control.

Similarly, the Fourteenth Amendment might also be invoked erroneously, as the right to liberty is merely the right to liberty against deprivation without due process of law. The conditions under which the right may be taken away are not covered by this amendment, and would need to be addressed by legislature.

Repealing Roe v Wade creates a start of a path to the realization of an unconstitutional Lawrence.

Law without Morality

While the path to repealing this unnatural perversion of the Constitution is becoming clear, as one reads Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion on Lawrence v Texas, one realizes that the repeal of sodomy laws wasn't only based on a false interpretation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, but an improper use of rational basis review.

The majority in Lawrence v Texas failed to apply strict scrutiny, which would only be appropriate if the Lawrence majority were newly recognizing a fundamental right. While Lawrence didn't establish intimate, consensual and private conduct as a fundamental right, it enforced the opinion that the morality of the majority can never be the state interest advanced by a law, an idea so radical and absurd that it deserved far more scrutiny than the rational basis review that Justice Kennedy defended. It essentially removed morality from consideration, asserting that morality was no longer sufficient justification for regulation. This is a piece of pure malarkey that upends centuries of tradition. Any man's common sense, unclouded by progressive perversion, will tell you at once that removing morality from the law is likely in the long run to be bad for him and bad for his country. Up until 2003, laws and the courts considered basing law on morality entirely uncontroversial.

Law has been based previously on the principle that government helps society towards a common good, protecting its citizens from evil and what would harm them. Allowing the law to become uprooted cuts it off from a millennia of moral teaching, denying Americans their cultural and moral heritage.

Extremist Left-liberal Justices, pushing an agenda of population control and radical freedom, enabled an faction that disrespects the hierarchies needed for society to function, destroys the family, mocks sacred social institutions, and places children in danger of indoctrination and molestation. The fact is, American society has greatly suffered from the results of this agenda. We have seen the promotion of birth control, which has placed women in revolt against the conditions of their nature, the genocide of babies for the sake of industrialized labor, and sacrilege of marriage. Americans have seen the degradation of their culture to the extent that they are crying out on the streets in muddled confusion, which is undeniably a result of the dismantling of law and order, and the enforcement of relativism over truth.

The fact remains, that the position that “morality of the majority can never be the state interest” is anti-American propaganda. The youth of America see how much their forebears gave up, and they have had enough.

The Constitution of the United States does not confer a fundamental right for its citizens to engage in sodomy, and there is no right to privacy which covers the conduct of sodomites.

Since the time of our English roots, sodomy has been criminalized, and the belief that sodomy is a crime against nature is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. The rejection of sodomy is in line with right order and Natural Law, which every human being on this planet is subject to by his Creator. Only when we return to a time when morality has its place in the law, will we truly be able to renew America, and make our country great again.